Guild Renown Changes

[eris2323]

Hi,

I'd prefer that the modified guild size for decay purposes be equal to the number of members, with a cap to prevent medium and large guilds with casual players from being harmed.

That way, people in tiny guilds, such as mine (a solo guild) would not decay as if they had more people in the guild than they do. That number is completely arbitrary and harmful to those whose guilds are under that size.

So far I've resisted the temptation to create more accounts to maximise my small guild bonus, but now that I'm on a decay rate of around 4000 per day, I may give in. I don't see why I should have to game the system like that.

It's a weird situation, to be eligible for a small guild renown bonus only to have renown taken away as if I had nine other active members. I have to be very active to maintain a steady rate of growth; if I just stood still, at my current guild level with the current rate of decay I lose over 1.4 million in renown every year. I'll eventually make it to 62, which is my goal, but it will be a pain in the backside, bearable rather than fun.

The people who seem against the removal or reduction of decay are ignoring the fact that it's pretty much impossible not to level in even a moderately active larger guild. I am glad to see those guilds doing so well. but what I don't understand is why the same opportunity can't be made available to smaller guilds.

Apparently it's okay for larger guilds, even with many casual players, to get the best ships and ship buffs but not for the smaller guilds to be able to do that. And that is what bugs me so much when I read this thread; some of its main contributors seem to think it is fine for them to claim the advantages of the current system for themselves but deny them to other people. Or at least deny them unless they play their way.

I suspect that a reduction of decay and a removal of the small guild bonus would leave some smaller guilds further behind than they are. That may be okay for people who are in larger guilds and have stated in this thread that they dislike smaller guilds, but for those on the other side of the fence, not so much.

I think if your starting position is that you actively dislike small guilds, then you don't have a lot of credibility in this discussion. You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but it becomes unpleasant when you are advocating harm to that group.

The renown requirements for levelling are steep for small and single person guilds, and those people are not being carried by a large number of fellows, who in the main are permitted to play as casually as they like. The work required to advance still has to be done by small guild members, and per person it is considerably more than those who have the option of coasting along in a larger guild.

Thanks.

Hi there.

See above. We've decided that the best solution is:

Decay size based on active members/3 (round down)-min:2/max:10

And the removal of the small guild bonus.

Two votes so far, which outnumbers the other long winded proposal by the other fellow whose name I can't recall...

Just as a reminder, large guilds have to work to get the buffs as well; in some cases, we had to work for years.

Why should tiny guilds now get so many benefits that they'll level up to 100 in 2 weeks?

Seems a little... cheesy.

[UurlockYgmeov]

Min 2, Max 10 - and no more unfair small guild bonus.

only amplifies the bias and makes amplifies the existing faults. not supported.

[eris2323]

only amplifies the bias and makes amplifies the existing faults. not supported.

Everyone wants to be king, no one wants to be the Knights.

[UurlockYgmeov]

Everyone wants to be king, no one wants to be the Knights.

totally off topic and pointless.

Reduces decay even further (from the of the current broken system) and establishes even more bias toward large guilds (extreme bias)

and I believe you have your capitalization backwards : King vs knights. and what about Queens? :P

[eris2323]

totally off topic and pointless.

Reduces decay even further (from the of the current broken system) and establishes even more bias toward large guilds (extreme bias)

and I believe you have your capitalization backwards : King vs knights.

Perhaps if you spent some time in-game actually making some renown instead of worrying about my lazy typing?

Perhaps this whole mess, including your almost universally hated proposals, would never have happened!

[UurlockYgmeov]

Why should tiny guilds now get so many benefits that they'll level up to 100 in 2 weeks?

you're bias is showing.

[eris2323]

I'll tell you what. I'd support:

Decay size based on active members/3 (round down)-min:2/max:10

and we can let you keep the small guild bonus, we'll just let it be our dirty little secret.

[eris2323]

you're bias is showing.

"Your" would be more correct.

And you are incorrect.

[UurlockYgmeov]

Hi,

I'd prefer that the modified guild size for decay purposes be equal to the number of members, with a cap to prevent medium and large guilds with casual players from being harmed.

That way, people in tiny guilds, such as mine (a solo guild) would not decay as if they had more people in the guild than they do. That number is completely arbitrary and harmful to those whose guilds are under that size.

So far I've resisted the temptation to create more accounts to maximise my small guild bonus, but now that I'm on a decay rate of around 4000 per day, I may give in. I don't see why I should have to game the system like that.

It's a weird situation, to be eligible for a small guild renown bonus only to have renown taken away as if I had nine other active members. I have to be very active to maintain a steady rate of growth; if I just stood still, at my current guild level with the current rate of decay I lose over 1.4 million in renown every year. I'll eventually make it to 62, which is my goal, but it will be a pain in the backside, bearable rather than fun.

The people who seem against the removal or reduction of decay are ignoring the fact that it's pretty much impossible not to level in even a moderately active larger guild. I am glad to see those guilds doing so well. but what I don't understand is why the same opportunity can't be made available to smaller guilds.

Apparently it's okay for larger guilds, even with many casual players, to get the best ships and ship buffs but not for the smaller guilds to be able to do that. And that is what bugs me so much when I read this thread; some of its main contributors seem to think it is fine for them to claim the advantages of the current system for themselves but deny them to other people. Or at least deny them unless they play their way.

I suspect that a reduction of decay and a removal of the small guild bonus would leave some smaller guilds further behind than they are. That may be okay for people who are in larger guilds and have stated in this thread that they dislike smaller guilds, but for those on the other side of the fence, not so much.

I think if your starting position is that you actively dislike small guilds, then you don't have a lot of credibility in this discussion. You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but it becomes unpleasant when you are advocating harm to that group.

The renown requirements for levelling are steep for small and single person guilds, and those people are not being carried by a large number of fellows, who in the main are permitted to play as casually as they like. The work required to advance still has to be done by small guild members, and per person it is considerably more than those who have the option of coasting along in a larger guild.

Thanks.

+1 thank you for posting!

actually - the system is now charging you as if you had 20 accounts, and guilds with 1000 accounts as if they had 20.

Yes you are correct - absolutely biased and unfair.

[Lowz]

Hi,

I'd prefer that the modified guild size for decay purposes be equal to the number of members, with a cap to prevent medium and large guilds with casual players from being harmed.

That way, people in tiny guilds, such as mine (a solo guild) would not decay as if they had more people in the guild than they do. That number is completely arbitrary and harmful to those whose guilds are under that size.

So far I've resisted the temptation to create more accounts to maximise my small guild bonus, but now that I'm on a decay rate of around 4000 per day, I may give in. I don't see why I should have to game the system like that.

It's a weird situation, to be eligible for a small guild renown bonus only to have renown taken away as if I had nine other active members. I have to be very active to maintain a steady rate of growth; if I just stood still, at my current guild level with the current rate of decay I lose over 1.4 million in renown every year. I'll eventually make it to 62, which is my goal, but it will be a pain in the backside, bearable rather than fun.

The people who seem against the removal or reduction of decay are ignoring the fact that it's pretty much impossible not to level in even a moderately active larger guild. I am glad to see those guilds doing so well. but what I don't understand is why the same opportunity can't be made available to smaller guilds.

Apparently it's okay for larger guilds, even with many casual players, to get the best ships and ship buffs but not for the smaller guilds to be able to do that. And that is what bugs me so much when I read this thread; some of its main contributors seem to think it is fine for them to claim the advantages of the current system for themselves but deny them to other people. Or at least deny them unless they play their way.

I suspect that a reduction of decay and a removal of the small guild bonus would leave some smaller guilds further behind than they are. That may be okay for people who are in larger guilds and have stated in this thread that they dislike smaller guilds, but for those on the other side of the fence, not so much.

I think if your starting position is that you actively dislike small guilds, then you don't have a lot of credibility in this discussion. You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but it becomes unpleasant when you are advocating harm to that group.

The renown requirements for levelling are steep for small and single person guilds, and those people are not being carried by a large number of fellows, who in the main are permitted to play as casually as they like. The work required to advance still has to be done by small guild members, and per person it is considerably more than those who have the option of coasting along in a larger guild.

Thanks.

BOOYAAA! smackdown! plus points for you!

[Tychagara]

Hi,

I'd prefer that the modified guild size for decay purposes be equal to the number of members, with a cap to prevent medium and large guilds with casual players from being harmed.

That way, people in tiny guilds, such as mine (a solo guild) would not decay as if they had more people in the guild than they do. That number is completely arbitrary and harmful to those whose guilds are under that size.

So far I've resisted the temptation to create more accounts to maximise my small guild bonus, but now that I'm on a decay rate of around 4000 per day, I may give in. I don't see why I should have to game the system like that.

It's a weird situation, to be eligible for a small guild renown bonus only to have renown taken away as if I had nine other active members. I have to be very active to maintain a steady rate of growth; if I just stood still, at my current guild level with the current rate of decay I lose over 1.4 million in renown every year. I'll eventually make it to 62, which is my goal, but it will be a pain in the backside, bearable rather than fun.

The people who seem against the removal or reduction of decay are ignoring the fact that it's pretty much impossible not to level in even a moderately active larger guild. I am glad to see those guilds doing so well. but what I don't understand is why the same opportunity can't be made available to smaller guilds.

Apparently it's okay for larger guilds, even with many casual players, to get the best ships and ship buffs but not for the smaller guilds to be able to do that. And that is what bugs me so much when I read this thread; some of its main contributors seem to think it is fine for them to claim the advantages of the current system for themselves but deny them to other people. Or at least deny them unless they play their way.

I suspect that a reduction of decay and a removal of the small guild bonus would leave some smaller guilds further behind than they are. That may be okay for people who are in larger guilds and have stated in this thread that they dislike smaller guilds, but for those on the other side of the fence, not so much.

I think if your starting position is that you actively dislike small guilds, then you don't have a lot of credibility in this discussion. You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but it becomes unpleasant when you are advocating harm to that group.

The renown requirements for levelling are steep for small and single person guilds, and those people are not being carried by a large number of fellows, who in the main are permitted to play as casually as they like. The work required to advance still has to be done by small guild members, and per person it is considerably more than those who have the option of coasting along in a larger guild.

Thanks.

points to you! well said!

I know fair - it is my job to know far and to be fair.

[eris2323]

BOOYAAA! smackdown! plus points for you!

Translation: I'm a solo guild and I should have a level 100 ship and it's too haaaaaaaaard right now.

You guys... know that the word guild doesn't apply to 'solo operations' right?

The very word itself ... means something different than SOLO SUPER GUY.

[Tychagara]

I'll tell you what. I'd support:

Decay size based on active members/3 (round down)-min:2/max:10

and we can let you keep the small guild bonus, we'll just let it be our dirty little secret.

sure - beat on the little guys and even reduce decay even further for the big guys, and then try to take away the little guys only chance at staying afloat?

Absolutely rediculous - biased and unfair.

I like uurlocks proposal because it is the best, most well thought out idea so far.

Dirty Little Secret? don't do the little guys any favors - they just want to be treated fairly without bias.

[eris2323]

sure - beat on the little guys and even reduce decay even further for the big guys, and then try to take away the little guys only chance at staying afloat?

Absolutely rediculous - biased and unfair.

I like uurlocks proposal because it is the best, most well thought out idea so far.

Dirty Little Secret? don't do the little guys any favors - they just want to be treated fairly without bias.

I don't believe that level 100 guilds, nor guild buffs, nor ships, should be handed out on a silver platter to anyone who wants them. I believe you must WORK to get them - socially, in this multi-player game.

And i believe the term 'solo guild' is an offence to the english language, and that every time someone claims to be a 'solo guild' an grammar imp, somewhere out there, dies.

Why not just sell level 100 guilds in the ddo store then?

Then any solo player could have a level 100 guild!

And if you think the long winded proposal is the BEST solution, you haven't been reading this thread. MANY other solutions are better.

Any solution like his, that goes back to penalizing guilds based on the amount of players they have, which is what he wants... is a bad system, and is what the OLD system was. It's bad. It's just bad.

It took us so long to get a change for the better; I really, really can't believe anyone wants to go back to the way it was...

What a horrible situation that was, game-wide.

[Gremmlynn]

Watch your own guild for a couple of days and you will see that at most 1/3 log in everyday - so maybe only 1/4 actually generate renown - so only about 1/4 would be counted toward decay.

In my guild probably way less than 1/3rd. But actually I was thinking more along the lines of those 1 player, 5 dummy account "guilds" having to put a bit more effort into circumventing the intents of the devs to stay in that size bonus sweet spot.

[Lowz]

Translation: I'm a solo guild and I should have a level 100 ship and it's too haaaaaaaaard right now.

You guys... know that the word guild doesn't apply to 'solo operations' right?

The very word itself ... means something different than SOLO SUPER GUY.

I think you are being very immature. Heck I am only 10 and I can say that.

What Blerkington IMO is saying is that guilds like his are willing to put in the time - and the effort - but just want to be fairly treated and bullied.

[eris2323]

I think you are being very immature. Heck I am only 10 and I can say that.

What Blerkington IMO is saying is that guilds like his are willing to put in the time - and the effort - but just want to be fairly treated and bullied.

I'm sorry you feel that way.

Perhaps you should go look up the word 'guild'.

I'm sorry that me posting what his response looked like to me offended you so much.

[blerkington]

Hi there.

See above. We've decided that the best solution is:

Decay size based on active members/3 (round down)-min:2/max:10

And the removal of the small guild bonus.

Two votes so far, which outnumbers the other long winded proposal by the other fellow whose name I can't recall...

Just as a reminder, large guilds have to work to get the buffs as well; in some cases, we had to work for years.

Why should tiny guilds now get so many benefits that they'll level up to 100 in 2 weeks?

Seems a little... cheesy.

Hi,

The thing is, most of the work you're referring which was done by large guilds is done by other people, not by you.

My renown contribution to my guild is just over 9 million, not including decay. It has taken large amounts of daily play for almost three years. That was a lot of work.

Even in the larger guilds, only people who play very regularly and have been doing so for a long time will be able to exceed this. This is not a boast, it's just an indication that there are people in smaller guilds who are working. Obviously you have to work to advance.

The situation we have now is that anyone can join a larger guild and receive all of the benefits of a high level guild without doing any work themselves, provided that the guild leadership is happy with that.

So we have the paradox of people in small guilds being criticised for wanting something for nothing but having to work to advance, while there is the option of joining a larger guild where in some cases you need to do little or nothing to contribute but still can reap the rewards. To me this sounds a comparison between spoilt rich kids and self-made men and women, but that's just me.

No doubt this will be read by some as another person from a small guild disliking larger guilds,. So once again, I will say that I like that fact that large guilds have been given a break from decay. I think they are good for the game too. It's just not the way I want to play, and I don't appreciate people from those guilds speaking out to restrict my opportunties to advance.

And seriously, has anyone suggested anywhere in this thread that they expect to be able to level to 100 in two weeks? Exaggerations of this sort serve no useful purpose in this discussion, they only serve to reduce your credibility.

Thanks.

[Wipey]

Apparently it's okay for larger guilds, even with many casual players, to get the best ships and ship buffs but not for the smaller guilds to be able to do that. And that is what bugs me so much when I read this thread; some of its main contributors seem to think it is fine for them to claim the advantages of the current system for themselves but deny them to other people. Or at least deny them unless they play their way.

That's the hypocrisy in this thread. It was okay for stagnant large not so active guilds to ask for a change because they simply couldn't advance ( the question is, what should guild level represent, activity, prestige, experience ? I don't know ) and some super active smaller guilds could.

Now every large guild will reach high level regardless of their activity and the same people would be against similar change for smaller guilds now . They couldn't do it before, but would know be saying how "you have to earn it and small guild shouldn't get a free ride ".

Doesn't matter if you post numbers, ( or even excellent Vanshilar's posts here ), there's no discussion.

[Tychagara]

And i believe the term 'solo guild' is an offence to the english language, and that every time someone claims to be a 'solo guild' an grammar imp, somewhere out there, dies.

Why not just sell level 100 guilds in the ddo store then?

Then any solo player could have a level 100 guild!

My opionon? You don't understand Uurlock's idea. Plain and Simple.

The idea doesn't take the game backward - it just fixes the problems that are currently with it.

I support Uurlock's idea because it currently is the best one out there.

And Ok - I am sure people like you would rush out and buy two. Yep IMHO - you opinions are extremely bigoted and nonobjectivity, one-sidedness, partiality, parti pris, partisanship, ply, prejudice, tendentiousness against any guild that isn't yours or exactly like yours.